To what extent do juries achieve justice?

[joannelovescake]

Hello friends, happy Saturday. I have been studying all day, prepping for next week's trials.

So I was doing a past trial paper I found on the internet..and the crime question caught me so off guard. It scared me to the point of cold sweat. My first thought was, "holy SHIT what if we get this in the HSC". And then I realised that it could be possible which scares me even more. Juries are only a tiny dot point of the syllabus and I honestly would not know how to answer this question besides stating the advantages and disadvantages, throw in a few articles and perspectives, statistics of how costly they are, and the very basic stuff. I reckon if I wrote all that my response wouldn't be longer than 2 pages.

Does anyone have any idea what else we could discuss? Are we allowed to shift the focus from juries to courts and then argue that there's court alternatives etc?

Good luck to everyone for their trials! My legal exam is on Wednesday.

[LochNess Monster]

You're hit it lucky! 
  Cause I happen to have done prepping as well...and one of my essay plans is on juries.

So you can talk about the Jury Act 1977, as well as the Juries (Amendment) Act 2006 NSW bringing in majority verdicts (vs. Law Reform Commission Report 2005 against majority verdict).

Also, R v Skaf is an awesome case to use for juries cause...this is a quick re-cap of what happened in case you haven't done it in class:
- 55 years first sentencing by Judge Finnane for Bilal being gang rape ringleader.
- In an appeal, the judge ordered retrial because two jurors went to the crime scene 
Also, search up the Robert Xie case for a back-up.

Some media articles on juries and their duties:

•    “Gaye Lyons loses High Court Bid” ABC 2016 → issue of discrimination against deaf – equality before law  jurors needed to be empanelled
     “Games Up” SMH 2008  Jurors didn’t comply with obligations + duty ($1 million district drug trial CJS)
     “DNA profiling is not infallible” SMH 2017 admissibility of DNA by jury

Hope this hellllppps! It's basically from my own notes   

[Lumenoria]

Haha my legal exam is next Wednesday too!!

I totally get you. Juries are actually quite interesting to talk about, perhaps at a surface level they seem really difficult to hone into, but once you expand on it, there are honestly a lot of things to discuss

The biggest thing for me is juror misconduct. I used the R v Skaf case to illuminate the detrimental impacts that a rogue juror can have on everyone in the trial. Take a look at the Austlii article by Peter Lowe: The Problems that Modern Juries Face, it is really good imo! I also talked about R v Gittany, and how their inclination to be influenced by media rhetoric can impede the offender's constitutional rights - therefore rendering them only effective in low profile cases etcetc. These are just a few from the top of my head. If you're still scratching for content, then I'd personally make a point of contrast to judge alone trials - i.e. they prevent an arbitrary use of power from judges. I reckon you could shift the focus, but you have to ensure you don't go too off track - it has to enhance your argument on juries ultimately. Sometimes it says "answer with reference to criminal trial system", but sometimes it's JUST jury system so it depends. But if you could pull it off nicely, then I reckon it could definitely work! Just don't completely circumvent the question at hand.

[joannelovescake]

thanks guys! I had no idea about jury misconduct in the R v Skaf case even though I used it in an essay plan for sentencing regarding aggravating factors. I appreciate the help!!

[henrychapman]

Hello friends, happy Saturday. I have been studying all day, prepping for next week's trials.

So I was doing a past trial paper I found on the internet..and the crime question caught me so off guard. It scared me to the point of cold sweat. My first thought was, "holy SHIT what if we get this in the HSC". And then I realised that it could be possible which scares me even more. Juries are only a tiny dot point of the syllabus and I honestly would not know how to answer this question besides stating the advantages and disadvantages, throw in a few articles and perspectives, statistics of how costly they are, and the very basic stuff. I reckon if I wrote all that my response wouldn't be longer than 2 pages.

Does anyone have any idea what else we could discuss? Are we allowed to shift the focus from juries to courts and then argue that there's court alternatives etc?

Good luck to everyone for their trials! My legal exam is on Wednesday.

We actually got a question almost identical to this in our half yearly ! Like you, I initially absolutely freaked out and thought I couldn't write an entire essay as I'd really only prepared one juries paragraph! But after thinking about it a bit more I was able to come up with three pretty decent paragraphs. They were:
1. Juries as a representation of society. Throw in the Jury Amendment Act 2010 which expanded the type of people that could be on jury duty and basically just talk about how juries are important to act as a representation of society's values. Maybe mention a case where they've really tried to promote standards of behaviour (one that comes to mind if R v Loveridge 2013 - Thomas Kelly Case)
2. Majority verdicts. Talk about how they aim to improve courtroom efficiency and reduce the time consuming nature of court and the possibility of re trials. However, they impede on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' burden of proof that is needed to commit someone of a crime.
Potential evidence here: Legal professional John McIntyre: “the effect of this change will be more people wrongly convicted”
NSW Law Reform Commission Report 2012: recommended that there should be an investigation into the jury process, specifically around comprehension and deliberation, rather then the law compromising a key right of the offender.
3. Jury members often don't know the law, so can undermine the process. Often they do not know specific technicalities which can have a huge bearing on the outcome of the case. Judges explaining concepts of law means courtroom efficiency is slowed down and hindered.
Evidence: SMH article in 2014 found that 70% of those who had served as jury members didn't know what 'burden of proof' meant.
R v Gitanny (2014) - judge only case which presents an attempt to mitigate juror bias. Judge was able to deliver a guilty verdict while come up with reasons why and effectively play the role of the jury in representing society's values.
I have a copy of the essay i wrote in the exam if you wanted to have a look. It is by no means perfect and I did not include all the evidence I have included in this reply but may assist to give you an idea. The file is apparently too large to attach here however I'll work out a way to post it. So you know - it received 13/15 and was one of two A range marks for this essay.

Hope this helps and best of luck with your trials and specifically on Wednesday